Should Scientists Debate Creationists

Written by The Star-Splitter

I will begin by saying that as of 10 February 2014, I openly challenge EvolutionFalse, Neph_, kingof kings_1, and JamieAllen to a formal debate regarding creationism.

Allow me to explain.

It is my firm belief that education is always the solution. Being knowledgeable about the universe always solves the problem, and in almost every case, ignorance, lacking the understanding of the cosmos in which you live in, is how those problems are started. This is not a bad thing, however. We have all been ignorant, are ignorant, and will be ignorant. Read that again- I do not mean that about just you, the reader, and I. I speak about our whole species.

The heliocentric model was described 471 years ago. Galileo outlined his laws of falling bodies 376 years ago. The law of conservation of mass which begat chemistry was documented by Antoine Lavoisier only 225 years ago. Special relativity? 109 years ago. What’s a black hole? We found out 99 years ago- we’re now less than a century ago. The cure for polio was released 62 years ago, now in a lot of peoples’ lifetime. The first planet found around a main sequence star was only 19 years ago: the average person was 9 when this happened (not actually average but mean, to be technical). These scientific discoveries seem obvious and textbook to us now, ingrained in some of us as much as the alphabet, algebra, and what onomatopoeia is. You’d seem crazy saying anything contradictory to these discoveries, but truly, they happened a short, short amount of time ago. So what happened? What happened around the sixteenth century that revolutionized everything?

Johannes Gutenberg invented the printing press in Germany around 1439. It revolutionized literature by introducing movable type. No longer were Bibles written by hand and only available for the rich in Europe. The common man could be educated as soon, the Bible was not the only book worth reading. Later, other forms of movable type would come about, then radio, television, and finally, the Internet. Ignorance is common and it’s only a sign that we can learn more. So why do I offer this debate so vigorously?

What I aim to do is show not that ignorance is bad. I aim to show that willfully ignorant people are unjustified and ridiculous.

It is pathetic to misconstrue science and facts to fit your own personal worldview- in fact, not just pathetic, but harmful. When Bill Nye and Ken Ham debated and eventually Ken Ham said that he did not care about actual reality but only wanted to view it through the lens of his religion, Bill Nye gave up and began speaking to the people of the state. Pet hypotheses about Jewish zombies, female Homo sapiens giving birth through parthenogenesis, and an age of the Earth that is only 0.0000013% its actual age (0.000000438% of the universe, with significant figures: 6000 years for Earth/Universe Biblically and 4.5 billion, 13.7 billion respectively) are counterintuitive to progress in civilization. Society hurts when its population thinks that it’s perfectly reasonable to think that we don’t have to rely on evidence and the scientific method.

So when Bill Nye debated Ken Ham, it wasn’t to educate Ken Ham. It was to educate society- that’s what science educators do. They aren’t just teachers, they are the medium of the scientific realm and the common man’s world. And in this age, we are finally exposing those people who redirect the flow of science to people into their pet hypotheses. Bill Nye exposed Ken Ham’s pet hypothesis of creationism. He did not let it fester. He made it openly obvious just how ridiculous Ken Ham was, and those delusional enough to think that Ken Ham won… well, they’re far gone. Not too far gone, but there is more worth in educating those who are still undecided. People who misuse forms of communication to not just miseducate people but knowingly miseducate people are destructive. Period.

These people face the same refutation over and over again but still claim their wrong ideas as fact- some even, in the face of a scientific community which overwhelmingly believes in the Big Bang and evolution, will say that creationism is scientific. It’s backwards. Evolution? That’s actually religion. Creationism? That’s actually science, even though the Dover case concluded otherwise, reference “Of Pandas and People”. Backwards. To reason with these people is analogous to a dog whistle where whatever you say, it’s pitched to where they cannot- no, will not, listen to it.

There are people in our society who are susceptible to these deranged delusions. Children and teenagers are in a biological situation where their minds are changing significantly and immensely plastic. We cannot allow them to be welded into Sculptures of Anti-Science. This debate, or these debates, will not be for my glory or their glory. It will not be to convince them that they are wrong and mislead. It will be for those susceptible to their delusions. I have sent this post link to all of those mentioned who I am willing to debate with.

This is for Gutenberg.

This entry was posted in Creationism, Debate, Evolution, Intelligent Design, PalTalk, Science. Bookmark the permalink.

What you think about this?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s